Receivers Bruce Gleeson and Daniel Soire of Jones Partners were appointed to the property of Melissa Caddick, and also picked to be provisional liquidators for Ms Caddick’s firm Maliver on Tuesday, following an ASIC application.
The regulator had raised concerns, which included Maliver may be providing financial services without an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL), the AFSL of another company may have been used without authorisation and investor funds may have been unlawfully dealt with.
The Federal Court had made interim orders against Ms Caddick and Maliver in November, including a prohibition against her leaving Australia and removing assets held in Australia.
But Ms Caddick had not shown at the first case management hearing of the matter, having reportedly vanished in November.
Justice Brigitte Markovic has now ordered that the receivers provide a report to the court and ASIC, by 15 February, that includes:
• the assets and liabilities of Ms Caddick;
• an opinion as to the solvency of Ms Caddick;
• the amount of money received by Ms Caddick from funds paid to Maliver by investors for investment;
• any investor funds held by Ms Caddick, any property acquired by Ms Caddick with investor funds and any payments made by Ms Caddick to third parties with investor funds and any other dealings by Ms Caddick with investor funds;
• any money paid directly to Ms Caddick by investors for investment and any property acquired, any payments made and any other dealings, by Ms Caddick with such money; and
• the receivers’ remuneration, costs and expenses.
Similarly, in their role as provisional liquidators, the pair will also need to provide a report on Maliver by 15 February that includes:
• persons who have paid money to Maliver for investment, the amounts they invested, and whether, and to what extent, these amounts have been repaid;
• identification of any bank accounts in which investor funds are held, any property acquired with investor funds or any other dealings with investor funds;
• identification of Maliver’s assets and liabilities;
• an opinion as to the solvency of Maliver;
• an opinion as to whether Maliver has proper financial records;
• an opinion as to the claims that may be available to the liquidators for the recovery of funds for the benefit of creditors;
• the likely return to creditors;
• any other information necessary to enable the financial position of Maliver to be assessed;
• an opinion as to whether Maliver has contravened any provisions of the act and/or any other legislation; and
• any suspected contraventions of the act by any directors or officers of Maliver.
The matter was further heard on Thursday and the remaining orders were finalised.
ASIC’s investigation is still ongoing. The matter is next before the court on 22 February.
Kate McClymont of SMH has spread the same defamatory information as ABC today. She said Caddick used “another financial adviser’s licence without permission”.
No Kate, she used a financial adviser’s licence without permission. “Another financial adviser’s licence” implies Caddick is a financial adviser herself – which she definitely is not. That would be like calling Pete Evans a doctor.
Rather than shouting at clouds, perhaps you could raise your concerns with Ms McClymont and see what she has to say to this? (Keeping in mind that Financial Adviser has recently become a restricted term)
She would say “Adele Ferguson has demonstrated that indiscriminate vilification of all financial advisers is a great way to generate cheap, sensationalised content. All us Fairfax journos are on the bandwagon now. Engagement is much more important than truth in today’s media.”
This is weird – the name gives the intention away! Maliver – deliver ‘mal’ or bad / evil, take your pick, the way Malaria means ‘bad air’ and plenty of English words starting with Mal as well.
Thankfully ASIC seems to have resisted their usual process of vilifying financial advisers by deceptively describing this fraudster as a financial adviser.
No such reticence from the ABC though, who have published an article referring to her as both a financial adviser and financial planner. Haven’t seen Adele Ferguson reporting on it yet, but I suspect it won’t be long before she too publishes a deliberately deceptive and inaccurate article designed to further her financial adviser vilification campaign.
The AFR reported she was an adviser. In the words of Frump “fake news”